Patch approval workflow
I've been digging trough the wiki, and couldn't find a list of people who are in charge of signing-off patches. Can anyone on the list point me to a place where I can find that info? To+
Everyone is in charge of signing off on patches. If you can test it you can sign off on it!! :) Instructions for how to sign off can be found on the wiki. Nicole On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been digging trough the wiki, and couldn't find a list of people who are in charge of signing-off patches. Can anyone on the list point me to a place where I can find that info?
To+ _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
* Nicole Engard (nengard@gmail.com) wrote:
Everyone is in charge of signing off on patches. If you can test it you can sign off on it!! :) Instructions for how to sign off can be found on the wiki.
Here we go http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow And http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Sign_off_on_patches Chris
Nicole
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been digging trough the wiki, and couldn't find a list of people who are in charge of signing-off patches. Can anyone on the list point me to a place where I can find that info?
To+ _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Chris Cormack <chrisc@catalyst.net.nz> wrote:
* Nicole Engard (nengard@gmail.com) wrote:
Everyone is in charge of signing off on patches. If you can test it you can sign off on it!! :) Instructions for how to sign off can be found on the wiki.
Here we go
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow
Awesome. To+
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow: Great! I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements: Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and patch signer should not be from the same company or institution. Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not be patch signer too. Any comments? Marcel -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] Namens Chris Cormack Verzonden: donderdag 31 maart 2011 02:25 Aan: Nicole Engard CC: koha-devel Onderwerp: Re: [Koha-devel] Patch approval workflow * Nicole Engard (nengard@gmail.com) wrote:
Everyone is in charge of signing off on patches. If you can test it you can sign off on it!! :) Instructions for how to sign off can be found on the wiki.
Here we go http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow And http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Sign_off_on_patches Chris
Nicole
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been digging trough the wiki, and couldn't find a list of people who are in charge of signing-off patches. Can anyone on the list point me to a place where I can find that info?
To+ _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Chris Cormack Catalyst IT Ltd. +64 4 803 2238 PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington 6142, New Zealand
Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow: Great! I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements:
Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and patch signer should not be from the same company or institution. Preferably, you're right. And I think it's the RM that must decide wether a sign-off is OK or no. Some patches are obviously simple and one sign-off is enough. And some patches are big, important, with structural consequences. In this case, even one sign-off may not be enough. So, the RM may include a signed-off-by-the-same-company patch without problem (many patches from bywatersolutions are going this way those days), and sometimes he may have put back the patch status to "pls sign-off", asking for another sign-off, even if he had already one from a different company. Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not be patch signer too. I've already expressed my feeling here: for us (BibLibre), the patch writer is not the real reporter: the reporter is a librarian, that reported the bug on our support platform. And when we submit a patch, it means we've tested and applied it on the library server. So when we mark "resolved", it's because the library reported it was OK [1]. So I think self-marking fixed is OK.
[1] well, to speak frankly: we ask libraries to close bugs on our -french speaking- support platform, but none of them does. But when we mark a bug fixed, if it is not, they never forget to reopen it ;-) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
You actually describe some kind of proxy bug closer. With this explanation we could enhance the workflow document? -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-bounces@lists.koha-community.org] Namens Paul Poulain Verzonden: donderdag 31 maart 2011 10:00 Aan: koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org Onderwerp: Re: [Koha-devel] Patch approval workflow Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow: Great! I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements:
Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and patch signer should not be from the same company or institution. Preferably, you're right. And I think it's the RM that must decide wether a sign-off is OK or no. Some patches are obviously simple and one sign-off is enough. And some patches are big, important, with structural consequences. In this case, even one sign-off may not be enough. So, the RM may include a signed-off-by-the-same-company patch without problem (many patches from bywatersolutions are going this way those days), and sometimes he may have put back the patch status to "pls sign-off", asking for another sign-off, even if he had already one from a different company. Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not be patch signer too. I've already expressed my feeling here: for us (BibLibre), the patch writer is not the real reporter: the reporter is a librarian, that reported the bug on our support platform. And when we submit a patch, it means we've tested and applied it on the library server. So when we mark "resolved", it's because the library reported it was OK [1]. So I think self-marking fixed is OK.
[1] well, to speak frankly: we ask libraries to close bugs on our -french speaking- support platform, but none of them does. But when we mark a bug fixed, if it is not, they never forget to reopen it ;-) -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08 _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
Le 31/03/2011 10:05, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
You actually describe some kind of proxy bug closer. With this explanation we could enhance the workflow document? I vote yes. Does anyone have something against that ?
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
Speaking for ByWater on the below mentioned practice: We do the internal sign-offs as a way to spot-check our work going out to the community. We do not mean for this to serve as "the signoff" for any of our work. We just want to be sure what we produce is of the highest quality we can muster BEFORE it goes out. Signoffs from other parties are encouraged and desired. If this seems like an inefficient or counterproductive practice to anyone, please let us know. The end goal is, as always, to make Koha the best it can be, and we're flexible on how we go about doing that if there's good reason to modify our process. Thank you all, and let's keep the patches rolling! -Ian On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain@biblibre.com>wrote:
http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow: Great! I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements:
Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and
Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit : patch signer should not be from the same company or institution. Preferably, you're right. And I think it's the RM that must decide wether a sign-off is OK or no. Some patches are obviously simple and one sign-off is enough. And some patches are big, important, with structural consequences. In this case, even one sign-off may not be enough. So, the RM may include a signed-off-by-the-same-company patch without problem (many patches from bywatersolutions are going this way those days), and sometimes he may have put back the patch status to "pls sign-off", asking for another sign-off, even if he had already one from a different company.
Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not be patch signer too. I've already expressed my feeling here: for us (BibLibre), the patch writer is not the real reporter: the reporter is a librarian, that reported the bug on our support platform. And when we submit a patch, it means we've tested and applied it on the library server. So when we mark "resolved", it's because the library reported it was OK [1]. So I think self-marking fixed is OK.
[1] well, to speak frankly: we ask libraries to close bugs on our -french speaking- support platform, but none of them does. But when we mark a bug fixed, if it is not, they never forget to reopen it ;-)
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal
Speaking for ByWater on the below mentioned practice:
We do the internal sign-offs as a way to spot-check our work going out to the community. We do not mean for this to serve as "the signoff" for any of our work. We just want to be sure what we produce is of the highest quality we can muster BEFORE it goes out. Signoffs from other parties are encouraged and desired.
If this seems like an inefficient or counterproductive practice to anyone, please let us know. The end goal is, as always, to make Koha the best it can be, and we're flexible on how we go about doing that if there's good reason to modify our process.
Thank you all, and let's keep the patches rolling! I'm perfectly OK with self-company signed patches (with BibLibre developers being more than 10, it means it will happends regularly). I just think that some patches are "heavy" and should be tested by many
Le 31/03/2011 16:12, Ian Walls a écrit : ppl (like a MARC21 and a UNIMARC tester, or an english and a non-english tester). And it's the RM who should be the one with the power to say "ok, it's signed, but I need another signoff !" just FYI : chris already told me that the deep changes we made on circ rules will need a sign-off by someone external to BibLibre. No problem with this ! /me always optimistic, so hopes that after next week hackfest in Marseille, we will have dealed with most of the late stuff (we tend to deal with new stuff quickly. It's the old stuff that stays pending...), then will be able to have a fluent workflow without any pending-for-no-reason bugzilla entry. -- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
participants (6)
-
Chris Cormack -
Ian Walls -
Marcel de Rooy -
Nicole Engard -
Paul Poulain -
Tomas Cohen Arazi